Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 10/4/08 06:54 PM, Diederick wrote: Though I am in doubt about why you added the markers """

Because it was a quote from Star Wars (from a scene where Yoda is teaching Luke), I simply replaced "the dark side" with "religion".

At 10/4/08 07:15 PM, AapoJoki wrote: Because it was a quote from Star Wars (from a scene where Yoda is teaching Luke), I simply replaced "the dark side" with "religion".

Err... small correction. In the original scene, Luke asks Yoda: "Is the Dark Side stronger?" Yoda's reply was unaltered in my post :P

But how am I to know the good side from the bad?

You will KNOW.

When you are literate, when you aren't forced to practice.

Before you rant about religion being unneeded you must first realize where religion came from, does anyone here know?
History claims we were religious back in prehistoric times so I'm sure no intelligent person here can claim to know where religion came from.

So, do we need religion?
Hmm, why would we is the question.
If you can answer that then that is the answer to the first.

Also, personally, believing in nonexistance after death in this life is just as unrealistic as the actual belief,consiering they believe everything came from a big bang for no apparent reason.

So you can roll the dice on your soul, i won't.

At 10/5/08 07:16 AM, Shaggytheclown17 wrote: So you can roll the dice on your soul, i won't.

Actually, by choosing a religion, you could be taking even a bigger risk than us, because choosing the wrong religion could potentially have far worse consequences. If the God you're worshiping turns out to be the wrong God, you could be punished more severely than those of us who have not chosen any god at all.

Perhaps we're at risk of damnation as well, but at least we're not allowing our life to be controlled by delusions and fantasies.

At 10/5/08 07:16 AM, Shaggytheclown17 wrote: Also, personally, believing in nonexistance after death in this life is just as unrealistic as....

I'm wondering. Why really? Is it really so unrealistic to assume that when you die you'll be dead?

Why do you think it's more reasonable to assume that when you die you'll be alive?

I believe that all beliefs and actions are results of influence. (e.g I can be influenced to think this way by observed results.) A person can be brought up morally correct, or morally wrong depending on the influence put on him.

Although I'm an atheist, I think that religions need to exist. People are more afraid of the uncertain, so religion can more easily change a person's way of thought. People who were morally incorrect may become better with religion.

At 10/5/08 10:24 AM, Jin wrote: People who were morally incorrect may become better with religion.

Couldn't a psychiatrist do the same?

At 10/5/08 10:32 AM, AapoJoki wrote: Couldn't a psychiatrist do the same?

Probably. Religion works with fear, so it may be more effective.

Since I don't live in the U.S, I don't know about U.S. But here, prideful ones don't go to psychiatrists.

At 10/5/08 07:16 AM, Shaggytheclown17 wrote: Before you rant about religion being unneeded you must first realize where religion came from, does anyone here know?
History claims we were religious back in prehistoric times so I'm sure no intelligent person here can claim to know where religion came from.

Religion came from the needs of a generation of mankind.

So, do we need religion?
Hmm, why would we is the question.
If you can answer that then that is the answer to the first.

We are not talking about the past, I am more than willing to agree that religion has played a great role in achieving a society such as ours. It is the here and now that I am concerned with.

Also, personally, believing in nonexistance after death in this life is just as unrealistic as the actual belief,consiering they believe everything came from a big bang for no apparent reason.

How is death not the end of a person's existence? Sure your molecules or at least your initial matter will live on eternally, but when the brain goes, the person goes. I am awaiting your arguments to move me in this matter, because these are plain laws of nature.

So you can roll the dice on your soul, i won't.

I don't have a soul, I have my body and my thoughts which are produced by my brain. Thoughts themselves are material in a way. And what if you're in the wrong religion? How would you know which is right and which is wrong?

At 10/5/08 10:24 AM, Jin wrote: Although I'm an atheist, I think that religions need to exist. People are more afraid of the uncertain, so religion can more easily change a person's way of thought. People who were morally incorrect may become better with religion.

Don't you think education could level out this issue? For instance, studying Existentialism? And morally incorrect people need correction, whether it is by a psychiatrist or by punishment.

shaggy afraid of dying

i'm afraid of not dying

Religion gives people hope.

It isn't like the Crusades where it murders. Only Muslims do that nowadays.

Religion is beneficial to mankind.

At 10/5/08 04:34 PM, McCain2008 wrote: Religion is beneficial to mankind.

Back up what you say don't just postcount+1 politics forum is not for that.
Maybe once but now religion seems to make people hate gays and refuse to believe science no matter how backed up that science is. It also creates religious conflicts like the ones in the middle east and stops science like stem cell research. Yes it gives people morals and there are many charaties made by churches but I am an atheist and all the atheists I know have strong morals and donate to charity and do volunteer work to.

At 10/5/08 04:34 PM, McCain2008 wrote: Religion is beneficial to mankind.

tell that to the little Islamic girl who just got her clitoris scraped off and her vagina crudely sewn shut as part of a religious "female circumcision" ceremony.

At 10/6/08 02:35 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

At 10/5/08 04:34 PM, McCain2008 wrote: Religion is beneficial to mankind.

tell that to the little Islamic girl who just got her clitoris scraped off and her vagina crudely sewn shut as part of a religious "female circumcision" ceremony.

Indeed, though that might seem like just an extreme example, religion is harmful on many levels, not just physically. I hope McCain2008 finds some arguments to back up his claims, or otherwise there will be no victory.

At 10/6/08 04:00 AM, Diederick wrote: ...religion is harmful on many levels...

I'm not 100% certain of that, although I'll be the first to admit that there's a faction of Islam that has gone absolutely, positively, plain-on-the-face-of-it fuck-nuts.

That wasn't always the case. Consider what the Ottoman Empire was doing 500 years ago, while Christians were barely able to converse without grunting. Current Islamic insanity is a cultural phenomenon, borne of being colonized, conquered, dumbed-down, meddled with, and suppressed. What goes around comes around. The Christian world could collapse all the way back to barbarism too, and probably will. The seeds of that are already apparent, and not entirely dormant.

That said, I see some advantages to Western religion (I'm leaving Eastern spiritual philosophy, which I frankly admire more, out of this). I know quite a few Christians who would go plumb loco if it weren't for their fear of going to Hell. In that sense, I don't see Christianity as a bad thing. It only goes bad when it's used as an excuse to go plumb loco, just as a segment of Islam is abusing its faith now.

It's a hard call. But bear in mind, this is the opinion of a guy who's essentially an agnostic. I do possess some tentative spiritual belief, but I don't see the Creator as "supernatural"--merely 100% natural and beyond human comprehension--and I don't think IT cares much about what we do here at all.

IT set up the rules, and we follow them. We don't have any choice, because the "rules" are what we call Natural Law: some of them explained, others we have yet to discover and prove.

At 10/6/08 04:28 AM, marchohare wrote:

It's a hard call. But bear in mind, this is the opinion of a guy who's essentially an agnostic. I do possess some tentative spiritual belief, but I don't see the Creator as "supernatural"--merely 100% natural

Well my friend, congratulations, you're not agnostic, you are DEIST.

At 10/6/08 04:43 AM, poxpower wrote: Well my friend, congratulations, you're not agnostic, you are DEIST.

I sometimes describe myself that way, but it's not entirely accurate: I don't claim to be certain. I am completely open to the possibility that there is no Creator, and we simply die dead.

It's not my primary hypothesis, but I'm open to it. Bottom line, I don't know.

At 10/6/08 05:33 AM, marchohare wrote:

At 10/6/08 04:43 AM, poxpower wrote: Well my friend, congratulations, you're not agnostic, you are DEIST.

I sometimes describe myself that way, but it's not entirely accurate: I don't claim to be certain. I am completely open to the possibility that there is no Creator, and we simply die dead.

It's not my primary hypothesis, but I'm open to it. Bottom line, I don't know.

It's a bit of a moot point if you ask me. Can you name ONE thing that nothing in existence and non-existence could not convince you otherwise of?

These labels, atheist, agnostic, deist, etc...if you ask me, it's basically the same position but with a shifted burden of proof.

Also, Atheism and Agnosticism are not mutually exclusive.

Atheism is not believing in god.
Agnosticism is not knowing whether god exists.

Therefore, an agnostic atheist is someone who is doesn't believe in god but is not certain of it.

not entirely relevant, no, but i sensedd some confusion of the terms in marchohare's posts.

the religion is a geographic accident, depends on where you are born whether you choose to believe or not

At 10/6/08 05:07 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote: not entirely relevant, no, but i sensedd some confusion of the terms in marchohare's posts.

Maybe. I'm not sure how to resolve the semantic fuzziness in what I was trying to express.

I draw a thick red line between belief and knowledge. Do I know a Creator exists? Hell no. Do I believe One exists? Mostly, for purely subjective reasons, but I'm not even certain about that.

Here's one thing I know, however: I couldn't care less whether anyone else adopts my belief system or not.

At 10/5/08 05:00 PM, aninjaman wrote: Maybe once but now religion seems to make people hate gays and refuse to believe science no matter how backed up that science is.

As I have pointed out ad nauseam, these are merely examples of people not practicing what they preach, not representative as religion as a whole.

At 10/6/08 05:37 PM, marchohare wrote: Maybe. I'm not sure how to resolve the semantic fuzziness in what I was trying to express.

yeah, I wasn't really trying to define your set of beliefs, but just pointing out the meaning of agnosticism.

Everyone who is not certain of their beleifs (gnosticism = knowlege, agnosticism = "not knowing") can pretty much identify themselves as agnostic to some degree.

Everyone needs a religion.

The fallacy in thinking about religion is that people assume it's this iron shackle tying down the human experience and ability to think outside conventional means. With all due respect, that's their respective identification of religion.

Whether a person is an atheist or a theist, that person will develop a personal belief system in one form or another. The only exception is is if you're an outright nihilist, and couldn't give one shit from the wind about the true meaning of anything.

If you believe there is a higher power, even if you're agnostic, you've taken a small step into religion because religion requires a faith-based response to an observation. Atheists tend to replace a majority of faith with logical inference and science. Ultimately though, the claim that a higher power doesn't exist also requires faith, because it can't be proven.

The real question should be "Do we really need faith?". It's my personal observation that faith is a part of the human experience, whether you believe in God or not. Ultimately, any given stance has a foundation in one form of faith or another.

Except for the Nihilists. Fucking marmot owning Johnson cutters.

i completely agree...i was raised without religion and im more morally correct than some of my friends that attend weekly religious services!

At 10/7/08 04:35 PM, Nylo wrote: Everyone needs a religion.

I obviously don't, and many with me.

The fallacy in thinking about religion is that people assume it's this iron shackle tying down the human experience and ability to think outside conventional means. With all due respect, that's their respective identification of religion.

Are you saying religion doesn't obstruct people?

Whether a person is an atheist or a theist, that person will develop a personal belief system in one form or another. The only exception is is if you're an outright nihilist, and couldn't give one shit from the wind about the true meaning of anything.

If you believe there is a higher power, even if you're agnostic, you've taken a small step into religion because religion requires a faith-based response to an observation. Atheists tend to replace a majority of faith with logical inference and science. Ultimately though, the claim that a higher power doesn't exist also requires faith, because it can't be proven.

The real question should be "Do we really need faith?". It's my personal observation that faith is a part of the human experience, whether you believe in God or not. Ultimately, any given stance has a foundation in one form of faith or another.

Except for the Nihilists. Fucking marmot owning Johnson cutters.

Absolutely not. Atheists do not need anything supernatural to experience life at it's best. In fact, I believe people who do not believe in supernatural powers experience a much greater world than people that do; because a God makes things simpler than they really are.

I am an Atheist and I absolutely do not grant any value to the supernatural. And it is the religious who need to defend their beliefs, because how can I defend something which isn't even there? Atheism is as much a belief as not collecting stamps is a hobby - I don't recall who said something like that in this thread, but it was brilliant. If you still feel Atheists should bring forth concrete evidence of the non-existence of a God or anything supernatural, consider that the Flying Teapot is equally unprovable as the Christian God (or any other God), just more obviously absurd.

At 10/7/08 04:35 PM, Nylo wrote: The only exception is is if you're an outright nihilist, and couldn't give one shit from the wind about the true meaning of anything.

Except for the Nihilists. Fucking marmot owning Johnson cutters.

hey hey hey nihlists have feeling too asshole but u do have a point.

btw religion isnt required but people (normal at least) need to have a peice of mind for their sanity.
(hee hee redundancy roxs)

and religions arent like giant shakles... take nature worship the only restriction is do no harm to nature and help when they can

or shamanism or better yet our friend...the WICCA yes u christian anti pagans... the WICCA

contrary to christian propaganda they arent devil worships or sadists or evil they just try to get results by other than conventional means

(unconventional religions ftw!!!)